Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Amit Mines Pvt Ltd. vs Maithan Alloys Ltd. on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Sanjay Karol
1
ITEM NO.27 +64 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17472-
17473/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-07-2023
in FAT No. 60/2015 24-07-2023 in FA No. 81/2015 passed by the High
Court At Calcutta)
AMIT MINES PVT LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAITHAN ALLOYS LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.158168/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
SLP No(s). 18260-18261/2023
IA No.166799/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.167271/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 25-08-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR
Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Adv.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv.
Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debajyoti Basu, Adv.
Mr. Sandip Chatterji, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Subhojit Seal, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2023.08.28
Mr. Diptomoy Talukder, Adv.
17:41:22 IST
Reason:
2
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR
Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Adv.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv.
Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Rongon Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (defendant). Also heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner (plaintiff) in connected case.
2. Both contesting parties in the Title Suit No.32/2008 are before us.
3. Interestingly, both the plaintiff and defendant have filed separate Special Leave Petition to challenge the judgment dated 24.07.2023 of the High Court whereby the High Court in considering the appeal against the judgment dated 05.11.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Asansol in Title Suit No. 32/2008 observed that a cryptic order was passed by the Trial Court without addressing the issues which were framed. Furthermore, in a recovery suit the Trial Court ordered appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to determine the liability. Accordingly, the High Court after setting aside the impugned judgment, remanded the 3 matter back to the Trial Court which was directed to frame issues afresh after receiving the suggestion from the parties. Direction was then issued to decide expeditiously the suit, on the basis of the evidence already recorded.
4. Assailing one part of the aforesaid direction of the High Court, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel representing the defendant advert to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC to point out that when deficiencies in framing of issues was noticed by the Appellate Court, it should have themselves framed the additional issues and thereafter ensure recording of necessary evidence in order to take a decision on those additional issues.
5. On the other hand Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that only when the Appellate Court continues to retain the appeal, it could have framed the additional issues and directed the Trial Court to take evidence and decide on the additional issues if it were to exercise powers under Order 41 Rule 25. The counsel then contends that this is a case where the Appellate Court under Rule 24 Order 41 should have determined the case finally on the basis of the materials available before the Trial Court and the High Court.
6. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court shall remain stayed.
[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT] COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR